How the 60s affected the Catholic Church

[TimothyH]

It’s not complex. The simple fact that chastity was so degraded by the sudden appearance of porn (Adult) Bookstores, which sold magazines with obscene ads inviting anyone to have sex the with women pictured in them, and the sudden appearance of topless bars and strip clubs. No faithful Catholic asked for any of this. It took millions of dollars, was highly coordinated and was protected by high priced lawyers. People did this, not history. Then we had dissidents inside the Church defying Pope Paul VI and his encyclical Humanae Vitae. On top of that, the makers of The Pill had to move product. The media gradually poisoned hearts and minds by slowly giving us bad examples till today.

Peace,
Ed

Artificial contraception is the root of all this and it started in the 1930’s.

Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul

The acceptance of contraception started with Article 15 of the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference which permitted “other means” besides abstinence. That got the ball rolling and every other non-Catholic Christian Church toppled like dominoes.

Pope Pius XI responded with the encyclical** Casti Connubii **on the last day of that year in which he excoriated the Anglican Church, condemned artificial contraception and predicted everything you have cited.

***Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. **

Read More…*

It goes back at least that far - 1930 - way before the 1960’s and Humanae Vitae.

-Tim-

 

[CarmelJerome]

Artificial contraception is the root of all this and it started in the 1930’s.

Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul

The acceptance of contraception started with Article 15 of the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference which permitted “other means” besides abstinence. That got the ball rolling and every other non-Catholic Christian Church toppled like dominoes.

Pope Pius XI responded with the encyclical** Casti Connubii** on the last day of that year in which he excoriated the Anglican Church, condemned artificial contraception and predicted everything you have cited.

***Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. ***

Read More…

It goes back at least that far - 1930 - way before the 1960’s and Humanae Vitae.

-Tim-

The backdrop against which contraceptives were promoted is the whole growth of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th century, in which certain nations or races were thought to be superior and others inferior; the regulation of birth became part of the idea that civilized people ought to have fewer but smarter children while the less civilized needed to be curbed almost entirely. The First World War was the initial result; then the culture of the 1920s; ultimate the hyper-racialism of the Nazi state. But the population and control ideas had struck deeper roots. The culture of death began much earlier; and part of the difficulty we have in addressing those under its spell is that we don' see it in its much wider social dimension. "Your civilization is evil; mine is better" is really this same idea -- the contraceptive colonialism of Melinda Gates and UN commissions is a notable expression of it; but so is the "clash of civilizations" business promoted in neo-con militarism. They belong to the same tree of death.

 

[edwest2]

I’m aware of the eugenics movement and what the Anglicans did. Nothing the Anglicans did applied to us. The birth control pill was not approved by the FDA until 1960. And was available by prescription. It did not see wider use and promotion until 1967, which I’m sure Pope Paul VI was aware of.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

I’m aware of the eugenics movement and what the Anglicans did. Nothing the Anglicans did applied to us. The birth control pill was not approved by the FDA until 1960. And was available by prescription. It did not see wider use and promotion until 1967, which I’m sure Pope Paul VI was aware of.

Peace,
Ed

Wile the articles of the Lambeth Conference did not apply to Catholics, it cannot really be said to have “nothing to do with us.” No one can deny that widespread acceptance of artificial contraception among Catholics is a reality today, and it had to start somewhere.

The pill certainly had much to do with it but the ball got rolling in society in general in 1930, picked up steam as other non-Catholic denominations followed, was accelerated as the military handed out condoms to troops in World War II, and was solidified when the pill became available in the late 60’s.

My point is that we can’t blame the people of the 60’s entirely. As CarmelJerome pointed out, Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement had as much to do with the situation we are in now as any one of the other events I have noted. It was a long time coming.

Porn, divorce, a whole generation of children denied the right to be raised in two family homes and abortion on demand are the fruit. It was many decades in the making, generation by generation. We can’t blame only the 60’s.

-Tim-

 

[edwest2]

Wile the articles of the Lambeth Conference did not apply to Catholics, it cannot really be said to have “nothing to do with us.” No one can deny that widespread acceptance of artificial contraception among Catholics is a reality today, and it had to start somewhere.

The pill certainly had much to do with it but the ball got rolling in society in general in 1930, picked up steam as other non-Catholic denominations followed, was accelerated as the military handed out condoms to troops in World War II, and was solidified when the pill became available in the late 60’s.

My point is that we can’t blame the people of the 60’s entirely. As CarmelJerome pointed out, Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement had as much to do with the situation we are in now as any one of the other events I have noted. It was a long time coming.

Porn, divorce, a whole generation of children denied the right to be raised in two family homes and abortion on demand are the fruit. It was many decades in the making, generation by generation. We can’t blame only the 60’s.

-Tim-

I was there in the 1950s and 1960s. The late 1960s was the start of the 5 year plan to overthrow the Church and social norms in general. It pained me to watch each step unfold in a massive, coordinated attack both inside and outside the Church. 1968 was the turning point for American and Western society in general.

This is confirmed by the reaction to the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968:

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: Regnum Christi

“an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

That is the primary event. I have other details as well. After all, makers of The Pill had to move product and could not afford to have people listening to the Pope.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

I was there in the 1950s and 1960s. The late 1960s was the start of the 5 year plan to overthrow the Church and social norms in general. It pained me to watch each step unfold in a massive, coordinated attack both inside and outside the Church. 1968 was the turning point for American and Western society in general.

This is confirmed by the reaction to the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968:

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: Regnum Christi

“an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

That is the primary event. I have other details as well. After all, makers of The Pill had to move product and could not afford to have people listening to the Pope.

Peace,
Ed

I had only hoped to make a point that there was much leading up to what happened in the 60’s and that it has gotten worse since then, that the 60’s were simply part of a chain of events. You seem very focused on the 60’s for some reason, to the exclusion of discussing anything else.

-Tim-

 

[edwest2]

I had only hoped to make a point that there was much leading up to what happened in the 60’s and that it has gotten worse since then, that the 60’s were simply part of a chain of events. You seem very focused on the 60’s for some reason, to the exclusion of discussing anything else.

-Tim-

I’m just replying to the topic: “How the 60s affected the Catholic Church,” so that’s my focus, but I have the knowledge and experience that tells me 1968 was the turning point - the tip of the spear. I know about the things leading up to this point but that is outside the topic. The assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., followed by the assassination of Robert Kennedy, among other things - 1968.

Best,
Ed

 

[Cat]

That is a very false but very common response.

It is highly inaccurate. We knew Russian ICBMs were, at most, 30 minutes away, but we did not lose a second of sleep over it. We knew what they could do. Civil Defense signs were on buildings in case a massive attack occurred. Scary? No.

Peace,
Ed

What is inaccurate about my post, please?

I said nothing about Russian ICBMs. I talked about things that I actually experienced growing up, or that I knew others were experiencing.

 

[edwest2]

What is inaccurate about my post, please?

I said nothing about Russian ICBMs. I talked about things that I actually experienced growing up, or that I knew others were experiencing.

Having been there is not the same as imagining what was going on, and this isn’t just an account of my experiences but has been chronicled in various books since.

1. I never spoke about fixing appliances. We owned a gas stove and a washing machine with a wringer. My mother preferred using scrub boards. I was addressing those people who have this fantasy that we were more affluent. We weren’t and we weren’t interested in being so. Our best clothes were saved for Church and special occasions.
2. You mention common sense and the relate it to the polio vaccine. A non-sequiter.
3. Our biggest threat at the time was “Godless Communism.” That’s what our government called it. Godless meant something to us. We and our government were on the same page.
4. We understood the plight of black people. I was never taught to view them as inferior. I saw the photos of police officers using dogs to attack them, and fire hoses. I also heard the words of a calm but committed Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, bring his words of non-violent change to all Americans. How the content of our character mattered - not the color of our skin. He was not for segregation, but understanding. None of this frightened anyone I knew and others at the time who gave him his support. I trusted my government to do the right thing. When President Kennedy was elected, he was criticized for his “liberal” views toward black people. In a public example of his commitment to a just cause, he appointed the first black Secret Service agent to the Presidential Protection Division, Abraham Bolden.

There is no evidence of a rebellion in the United States, but the actions of small groups who were violent offering a violent solution to the problems facing black people in housing, employment and other areas. This was not a solution but an example of the wrong approach to addressing the problems facing black people. Setting fire to buildings, stealing? Those were solutions? While I was watching the Detroit riot unfold on TV, the National Guard, heavily armed, quickly isolated and brought the rioters under control. That was evil. That was anarchy. The Reverend King sought justice by peaceful means.

Black people under busing - forced busing - did not integrate communities. I grew up in Detroit. Right now, Detroit is the most segregated city in the country.

 

[edwest2]

Present your evidence that “for many women, life wasn’t beautiful.” That was not just a 1960s thing either. But when the Women’s Liberation Movement sprang up, they would champion women turning against their own natures - killing their own babies in the womb. Go to the web site of the National Organization for Women now. See what they stand for.

Women left their husbands and lived with their parents or relatives or got divorced, legally and for cause. My mother asked me: What do these women want? Now I know they were brainwashed and turned against themselves by yet another tribe of liars.

Husband - evil.
Patriarchy, including the Church, evil.
Housewife? Never. Get a career. Get power.

The Vietnam War? The vets I knew who fought there told me what the war was about. I’m talking about combat vets. The idiots, the deviants and the Communists and others who hated America did not need a reason to protest the Vietnam War - protesting was all they knew. I know why the war happened. I know why more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than all of Europe during World War II. The Vietcong did not have fleets of B-52s to carpet bomb their country.

After the war was over, the same restless instigators went back to their dope and immoral sex. That’s all they had left. Money? Clout? In every war, the peasants are sent in first.

There is no evidence that after military budget cuts, that any protesting created a voluntary draft. None. Base after base was closed as the Cold War winded down in the early 1990s

There was nothing scary about any of this. They were not ‘movements of the people.’

What “all the violent protests” are you talking about? By the early 1970s, the FBI, through COINTELPRO, shut all that down. Vietnam was being shut down. I watched the news on TV every day, back when it was still about real news.

It’s very simple if one takes the time to study history. To learn the facts.

If anyone wants to know how the lie of abortion was sold, read this (1969):

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

We were lied to by a lot of people.

Peace

 

[Lormar]

The question you have posed is interesting, but one that you’ll probably find very much agreement. As a man who is well on his way to being labeled an octogenarian, I lived through the entire period and remember it well. But what I could share is simply my perspective which may be quite different from someone else’s. Most importantly, I can assure you it will be very different from those who are simply repeating what they have herds from others; or worse, have an agenda that requires their version of events to be consistent with that agenda.

I should also tell you that I’m a daily Communicant in an OF parish, and have been so for a great many years. We have a place on the west coast of Florida, and when their I attend the daily TLM at the Church of Christ the King in Venice. I am a cradle Catholic whose parents were both from Ireland and who sent their 4 children to catholic schools. I was taught by the Sisters of Notre Dame. I married my high school sweetheart and we are blessed with 4 children and 9 grandchildren. Three of our children attend Mass regularly while our one unmarried daughter has all but given up the faith. With that background, let me share with you a few recollections of my earlier experiences with the Church.

Many people today believed the vernacular (English) Mass in substitution for Latin was a product of Vatican II. That is not correct. Vatican II wasn’t convened until October 1962, while the “changes” began long before that. I was living in the Archdiocese of Washington (suburban Maryland), and our first exposure to English in the Mass was in January or February of 1960. I seem to recall that the first change was introduction of the English translation of Domine, non sum dignus ut intros sub… (Lord I am not worthy that thou should …). It was originally said three times, just like the Latin; but after about 6 months it was cut down to once. The language was changed for a while, but as of the last “revision” it went back to the original wording.

There would be many more details such as that which might be interesting to someone trying to figure out just what had happened, but the important thing for everyone to realize, is that there was no “upheaval” or “rebellion” as you or someone has suggested. Catholics, at the time, were absolutely obedient to the Church. If the priest told everyone to dress in purple and come with their shoes off it would not have been questioned for a moment. All faithful Catholics at the time believed that their was only one Church, and that Church spoke with a single voice. So when the priest said sing we sang, and when he said stand we stood. No one every questioned anything.

Virtually no one at the time had any idea of what Vatican II was all about. It was never explained. We heard about it and that was about all. The details about Church Councils of the past, though important, were not part of the Catholic faith––at least as far as the relatively uneducated masses were concerned. The sermons (we did not call them “homilies”, and traditionalists like myself don’t call them homilies today) were about living sin-free Catholic lives. We were told there was a heaven and a hell and that those who died without being in Sanctifying Grace (there’s a phrase you don’t hear much these days) went to hell. Sins that were not considered to be appropriate for discussion form the pulpit were fully discussed in painstaking detail found in “free” pamphlets in the racks at the back (“narthex” was unheard of) of every church.

But the changes were endless. As were the new inventions. For a while they were hanging a seemingly endless supply of meaningless colorful banners that always had “holy” phrases and words, but never really said anything. Depending on the church, over the years they put up the “Table” and took down the Altar Rails and told us that we were now going to file up in lines to receive Communion. The Communion “in the hand” didn’t start right away, that was later, but the relaxing of the rules regarding fasting before receiving was early on. Of course the real changes did not begin until after Pope Paul VI instituted he “New Mass”, but there were many changes that preceded it. At the time, it should be known, there was not a clear understanding of why any of this was happening, or for that matter, when it would all finally settle down and become “finalized”. Of course, as we later learned> it never would and still hasn’t.

There is much much more that I could say on this topic, but this is a forum and I’m simply trying to respond to a very complex question that cannot fairly be answered in this format. Nevertheless, perhaps my recollections would be a piece of the answer that might be helpful, but I’d be happy to answer any specific question you might have as well.

Your recollection of the events of the sixties matches my own very well.

 

[Lormar]

I’m just replying to the topic: “How the 60s affected the Catholic Church,” so that’s my focus, but I have the knowledge and experience that tells me 1968 was the turning point - the tip of the spear. I know about the things leading up to this point but that is outside the topic. The assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., followed by the assassination of Robert Kennedy, among other things - 1968.

Best,
Ed

What I remember is 1965 being the end of whatever we knew. Not just in terms of the Church, but in our culture as well.

The bottom line is that no one in 1960 would have dreamed that in 1970, both would be unrecognizable.

And, in case Catholics here are unaware, the “Pill” was invented by a Catholic doctor. I believe his name was Dr. John Rock. He was a daily Mass goer as well. From what I recall, he was so disappointed when Humanae Vitae came out, that he left the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

And, in case Catholics here are unaware, the “Pill” was invented by a Catholic doctor. I believe his name was Dr. John Rock. He was a daily Mass goer as well. From what I recall, he was so disappointed when Humanae Vitae came out, that he left the Church.

Yes, supposedly he worked with the Church on developing this pill. He had already gotten Pius XII’s approval to have available to regulate menstrual cycles. Later the pill received approval from the FDA to be used as a contraceptive device, not as an abortifacient as abortions were illegal at the time. John Rock felt confident the Church would approve it in some capacity, especially after Populorum Progressio was issued.

 

[Cat]

Present your evidence that “for many women, life wasn’t beautiful.” That was not just a 1960s thing either. But when the Women’s Liberation Movement sprang up, they would champion women turning against their own natures - killing their own babies in the womb. Go to the web site of the National Organization for Women now. See what they stand for.

Women left their husbands and lived with their parents or relatives or got divorced, legally and for cause. My mother asked me: What do these women want? Now I know they were brainwashed and turned against themselves by yet another tribe of liars.

Husband - evil.
Patriarchy, including the Church, evil.
Housewife? Never. Get a career. Get power.

The Vietnam War? The vets I knew who fought there told me what the war was about. I’m talking about combat vets. The idiots, the deviants and the Communists and others who hated America did not need a reason to protest the Vietnam War - protesting was all they knew. I know why the war happened. I know why more bombs were dropped in Vietnam than all of Europe during World War II. The Vietcong did not have fleets of B-52s to carpet bomb their country.

After the war was over, the same restless instigators went back to their dope and immoral sex. That’s all they had left. Money? Clout? In every war, the peasants are sent in first.

There is no evidence that after military budget cuts, that any protesting created a voluntary draft. None. Base after base was closed as the Cold War winded down in the early 1990s

There was nothing scary about any of this. They were not ‘movements of the people.’

What “all the violent protests” are you talking about? By the early 1970s, the FBI, through COINTELPRO, shut all that down. Vietnam was being shut down. I watched the news on TV every day, back when it was still about real news.

It’s very simple if one takes the time to study history. To learn the facts.

If anyone wants to know how the lie of abortion was sold, read this (1969):

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

We were lied to by a lot of people.

Peace

I find your posts difficult to follow. You leap from subject to subject, and it all seems very random. You use sentence fragments that I can’t connect. At times, I’m not sure exactly what you are saying.

I think that perhaps you think faster than you write.

You also call names. This makes it difficult for me to know how much of your posts are personal opinion and how much is fact.

**I want to make it clear that my husband and I have been involved with the pro-life movement since we were married in 1980. ** We were trained in shepherding, and for several years, while we had our own babies, we also welcomed mothers involved with crisis pregnancies into our home. We have travelled four times to Washington for the March for Life. We have given money to pro-life organizations, including our own Crisis Pregnancy center in our current city. We have prayed in church, out of church, and in front of our abortion clinic, which, praise God, was closed a few years ago after failing health inspections on multiple counts.

Just because I point out that there was/is some validity to the Women’s Movement doesn’t make me or any other woman or man a pro-choice sympathizer.

I see no wrong in women holding down jobs, owning property, having credit cards, living on their own away from their parents, etc. These choices are NOT evil, and women who make these choices are not in the same camp as those who choose to have sex outside of marriage, those who choose to use artificial birth control, and those who choose to destroy unborn children through the heinous act of abortion.

I’m glad that your family wasn’t scared. Mine was. We lived 65 miles from Chicago, where some of the worse and most violent race riots happened in the 1960s. Then and now, our small city gets the fugitives from the Chicago area, and as a result, we have highest percentage of violent crime in Illinois. So yes, my parents were scared and with good reason!

You asked for examples of violent protests. The one that comes to mind was the Kent State protest, which resulted in the death of four students. I’m NOT saying that the students were innocent, and I’m NOT saying that the authorities were at fault for shooting the students. I think that authorities always have the right to protect themselves by using deadly force. But surely you will agree that when students are shot and killed by the authorities on a college campus, this is “violent.”

There were plenty of other violent college protests in the 1960s that resulted in damage to buildings and injuries to those participating.

Same for the various race riots and racial protests. There were plenty of race riots in the 1960s that started out as peaceful civil rights protests and turned violent, with injuries and property damage.

I agree with all those who are citing the influence of the eugenics movement in the early 1900s on the development and use of various birth control methods. I also want to remind everyone that the Pill was the “easy” birth control method, but plenty of women were using diaphragms and other methods of birth control before the Pill was invented.

I would also remind everyone that prejudice, especially against Jews, has been around since the Lord first chose Abraham’s family as the “Chosen People.” Anti-Semitism was one of the catalysts of the Eugenics movement. And much of the Anti-Semitism was fueled by the occultists of the 1800s and early 1900s who believed in the “root races” theories, which considered Jews as an inferior, sub-human race. This occult movement provided fodder for those who accepted Eugenics as “science.”

 

[otjm]

I was there in the 1950s and 1960s. The late 1960s was the start of the 5 year plan to overthrow the Church and social norms in general. It pained me to watch each step unfold in a massive, coordinated attack both inside and outside the Church. 1968 was the turning point for American and Western society in general.

This is confirmed by the reaction to the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968:

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: Regnum Christi

“an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

That is the primary event. I have other details as well. After all, makers of The Pill had to move product and could not afford to have people listening to the Pope.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I would have to disagree with you that Humanae Vitae and the reaction to it were the primary event. Catholics live in society; they work with non-Catholics; they read secular news papers (and in the 1960’s, more and more watched television); they have neighbors who are non-Catholic, and a significant portion of them went to secular schools, and particularly secular colleges.

Primary too often means “first”. I would agree that it was the explosion that rocked the Church and continues to rock the Church; but the ground work had been laid, long before Paul VI was Pope.

Tim is right; the Anglican decision to allow contraception into the bedroom was the significant “primary” event; prior to that no - none - mainline Christian church allowed for birth control. By the time Paul VI started his commission, the only mainline church which still held birth control to be morally wrong was the Catholic Church.

So by the time that the Pill was coming out, the groundwork had already been well paved by the reactions of people in other denominations, something that was not exactly hidden from view of your run-or-the-mill in the pew Catholic.

Keep in mind also, that the Pill was seen as working far differently than any other form of birth control; because it did not appear to work as a mechanical barrier or an abortificent , but rather was seen as a medical change to the women’s cycle preventing ovulation, there were many theologians who felt that this was permissible. And where there is a legitimate quetion, there is going to be a difference of opinion on how to handle the matter. Confessors were getting women in, in droves, questioning the use of the Pill. The ;Church had no pronouncement on the matter; theologians were divided; bishops were left without any final answer, and with theologians all over the map on it.

As to your comment about the makers of the Pill “having to move product”, that is simply wrong. They couldn’t keep up with the demand for it; it was not advertising that was driving it, but rather consumer demand. If the makers of the Pill had to do anything, it was to get out of the road of the onslaught of demand; they were far busier trying to ramp up production than trying to create demand.

Keep in mind the population hysteria which had the population growing exponentially, and food geometrically; we were on a downhill slope headed for hell of starvation riots, and outright all-global war, if one listened to the prophets of doom.

The world had come out of two massive wars, went into a “conflict” in which China decided to put troops on the ground; then after a stalemate there, hand another Asian war in which the Chinese had advisers on the ground; had a stare-off between two super powers armed with nuclear weapons had people realistically thinking Armageddon was 15 to 30 minutes away; and the average pew warmer was caught between a Church that had varying opinions but no answers and a society that was talking doom, the only difference being the method and timing of when it would occur.

By the time Humanae Vitae came out, Catholics were already using the Pill, often with the approval of their confessors; and that approval could vary between reluctance and open approval. Again, hind site is 20-20. It is easy to say “they should have known better”, but the fact is, there were well respected people who saw it differently.

We can look back and see the prescience and the prophetic wisdom of the minority of the commission and of Paul VI. That is far, far different than being in a decision making position in the mid 1960’s.

The reaction to Humanae Vitae blew the lid off the box; but it didn’t start anything; “anything” was already in or past the bud stage. It just put it in full bloom.

And by the way - I was there in the 50’s and 60’s too.

 

[otjm]

What I remember is 1965 being the end of whatever we knew. Not just in terms of the Church, but in our culture as well.

The bottom line is that no one in 1960 would have dreamed that in 1970, both would be unrecognizable.

And, in case Catholics here are unaware, the “Pill” was invented by a Catholic doctor. I believe his name was Dr. John Rock. He was a daily Mass goer as well. From what I recall, he was so disappointed when Humanae Vitae came out, that he left the Church.

Actually, it appears that Rock was part of the testing group of physicians. He was working with Gregory Pinkus; and Pinkus had been encouraged (and if I remember correctly possibly partially funded) by Margaret Sanger, the founder ultimately of Planned Parenthood.

While Pinkus was working on it, More of the actual start of the Pill seems to be with Carl Djerassi, in Mexico.

 

[Lormar]

Actually, it appears that Rock was part of the testing group of physicians. He was working with Gregory Pinkus; and Pinkus had been encouraged (and if I remember correctly possibly partially funded) by Margaret Sanger, the founder ultimately of Planned Parenthood.

While Pinkus was working on it, More of the actual start of the Pill seems to be with Carl Djerassi, in Mexico.

The book I read only spoke of Dr. John Rock’s involvement. It didn’t mention anyone else. But I do remember reading he left the Church in complete disappointment over HV.

 

[otjm]

The book I read only spoke of Dr. John Rock’s involvement. It didn’t mention anyone else. But I do remember reading he left the Church in complete disappointment over HV.

Born in 1890, graduate of Harvard Medical School, the doctor and his wife had 5 children. He was a pioneer in in vitro fertilization and sperm freezing.

In the 1930’s he founded a clinic to teach the rhythm method. In 1931, he was the only Catholic doctor to sign a petition to legalize birth control. In the 40’s he taught at Harvard Medical School, and his curriculum included methods of birth control, and coauthored a birth control book for the general reader in 1949.

He was recruited in 1952 to work on the clinical use of progesterone to prevent ovulation; the result was Enovid, the first birth control pill, approved by the FDA and put on the market in 1957 for the control of menstrual disorders. In 1960 it was approved for contraceptive use. He was then 70 years old.

In 1958 Pius XII approved it for the treatment of menstrual disorders; the doctor campaigned (the Church) for its use as contraception, including a book (The Time Has Come: A Catholic Doctor’s Proposals to End the Battle over Birth Control).

Two things reported of him may have had a profound effect on his views; one was the reported comment from a priest when he was 14, to always follow his conscience. The second was working in Guatemala after graduation from high school on a banana plantation; he apparently was very moved by the poverty he saw, particularly of the impact that having many children had on families. Much of his early research was in trying to help women conceive, and focused on hormonal means or regulating women’s cycle.

Yes, he quit going to Mass. And yes, the Church not only teaches that one must follow one’s conscience, but also that one must have a correctly formed conscience.

So before we go too far in judging Dr. Rock, one must remember that until 1968, the Church did not have an official position concerning the use of medication to prevent conception, so the Church was of little or no help in answering that specific question. He did the best he could, with what he had.

He simply was wrong. And yes, one is to submit to the Church when the Church speaks. On the other hand, it should be understandable (and understanding is not the same thing as acceptance) that after a lifetime of trying to do what he perceived as an extreme good, that he was not able to accept the Church’s reaction to the Pill.

I have read that he returned to the Church, but cannot vouch for the accuracy or that note.

 

[felsguy]

As a man who is well on his way to being labeled an octogenarian, I lived through the entire period and remember it well. But what I could share is simply my perspective which may be quite different from someone else’s.

:clapping::tiphat: How refreshing. I wish everyone posted with that attitude.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I would have to disagree with you that Humanae Vitae and the reaction to it were the primary event. Catholics live in society; they work with non-Catholics; they read secular news papers (and in the 1960’s, more and more watched television); they have neighbors who are non-Catholic, and a significant portion of them went to secular schools, and particularly secular colleges.

Primary too often means “first”. I would agree that it was the explosion that rocked the Church and continues to rock the Church; but the ground work had been laid, long before Paul VI was Pope.

Tim is right; the Anglican decision to allow contraception into the bedroom was the significant “primary” event; prior to that no - none - mainline Christian church allowed for birth control. By the time Paul VI started his commission, the only mainline church which still held birth control to be morally wrong was the Catholic Church.

So by the time that the Pill was coming out, the groundwork had already been well paved by the reactions of people in other denominations, something that was not exactly hidden from view of your run-or-the-mill in the pew Catholic.

Keep in mind also, that the Pill was seen as working far differently than any other form of birth control; because it did not appear to work as a mechanical barrier or an abortificent , but rather was seen as a medical change to the women’s cycle preventing ovulation, there were many theologians who felt that this was permissible. And where there is a legitimate quetion, there is going to be a difference of opinion on how to handle the matter. Confessors were getting women in, in droves, questioning the use of the Pill. The ;Church had no pronouncement on the matter; theologians were divided; bishops were left without any final answer, and with theologians all over the map on it.

As to your comment about the makers of the Pill “having to move product”, that is simply wrong. They couldn’t keep up with the demand for it; it was not advertising that was driving it, but rather consumer demand. If the makers of the Pill had to do anything, it was to get out of the road of the onslaught of demand; they were far busier trying to ramp up production than trying to create demand.

Keep in mind the population hysteria which had the population growing exponentially, and food geometrically; we were on a downhill slope headed for hell of starvation riots, and outright all-global war, if one listened to the prophets of doom.

The world had come out of two massive wars, went into a “conflict” in which China decided to put troops on the ground; then after a stalemate there, hand another Asian war in which the Chinese had advisers on the ground; had a stare-off between two super powers armed with nuclear weapons had people realistically thinking Armageddon was 15 to 30 minutes away; and the average pew warmer was caught between a Church that had varying opinions but no answers and a society that was talking doom, the only difference being the method and timing of when it would occur.

By the time Humanae Vitae came out, Catholics were already using the Pill, often with the approval of their confessors; and that approval could vary between reluctance and open approval. Again, hind site is 20-20. It is easy to say “they should have known better”, but the fact is, there were well respected people who saw it differently.

We can look back and see the prescience and the prophetic wisdom of the minority of the commission and of Paul VI. That is far, far different than being in a decision making position in the mid 1960’s.

The reaction to Humanae Vitae blew the lid off the box; but it didn’t start anything; “anything” was already in or past the bud stage. It just put it in full bloom.

And by the way - I was there in the 50’s and 60’s too.

That is simply inaccurate. There were a number of groups that were formed for the express purpose of destroying the family, starting in 1965. They were coordinated.

Peace,
Ed